Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 409 - 409
1 Sep 2012
Molt M Molt M Tolsvig-Larsen S
Full Access

Introduction. When introducing new joint replacement designs, it is difficult to predict with any certainty the clinical performance of the new designs. Using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) to evaluate the first two years of follow-up can serve as a predictor of late mechanical loosening for hip and knee prostheses. This prospectively randomized study was designed to evaluate the clinical performance of the Triathlon total knee system and compare the results between the two versions; posterior stabilized (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR). Methods. Sixty patients were consecutively randomized (two patients left the study prior to surgery) to receive either the Triathlon total knee PS (30 patients) or the Triathlon total knee CR (28 patients). All components were cemented. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee for Lund University. All patients met the inclusion criteria. There were no statistically significant differences between the demographics for PS and CR. RSA was set to be the principal evaluation parameter. Patient outcome was assessed by the KSS and KOOS questionnaires. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in rotation or translation around or along the three coordinal axes. Neither were there any differences in the maximal total point motion (MTPM) during the 2-year follow-up (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the clinical results of both groups when using the KSS and the KOOS scoring system (p<0.05). Discussion. There were no clinically significant differences in the RSA 2-year follow-up data, nor in the clinical scores of KSS and KOOS. The results of this study suggest that there is no major differences between the posterior stabilized system and the cruciate retaining system for the Triathlon total knee neither in clinical nor in predictable long term mechanical performance


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 93 - 93
1 Sep 2012
Van Der Maas J Verdonk P Tampere T Almqvist F Verdonk R
Full Access

Background. There is growing evidence in literature that meniscal allograft transplantation performed with the right indications results in significant pain relief and functional improvement of the involved joint. Long-term data on clinical and radiological outcome are however scarce. Methods. We evaluated 89 transplants (53 lateral and 36 medial) in 87 patients. Mean time of follow-up was 15,5 ± 2,85 years (range 9,9–20,4), mean age at surgery was 35,2 years (range 22–50). Clinically, the patients were evaluated using a KOOS, SF-36, HSS, VAS, Tegner and Lysholm score. HSS scores were compared to pre-operative and mid-term follow-up data. Each patient received radiographs (AP, profile and Rosenberg view). Radiological outcome parameters were joint space width narrowing and Fairbank changes and were scored according to IKDC. Failures were defined as patients who were converted to an arthroplasty. Results. HSS-scores improved significantly from 119 ± 27pre-operatively to 160 ± 40 at long-term follow-up. Lysholm-score was 69 ± 22, which was defined as a fair result. Mean VAS-score was 3,4 ± 3, mean Tegner was 4 ± 2. There were no significant differences between following subgroups: left or right knee, medial or lateral allograft, combined procedure with a high tibial osteotomy and male or female. Nine (25%) of the thirty-six medial and ten (19%) of the fifty-three lateral grafts failed after a mean of 9,9 years. Conclusions. Transplantation of a viable meniscal allograft can significantly relieve pain and improve function of the knee joint. Survival analysis showed that this beneficial effect remained in approximately 70% of the patients at fifteen years. This study proves that meniscal allograft transplantation is a beneficial procedure to postpone total knee arthroplasty for more than 10 years in young active patients


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 86 - 86
1 Sep 2012
Negrin L Vécsei V
Full Access

Objective. To provide a best estimate of the average treatment effect when microfracture was chosen as the intervention of choice in patients with full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee. Design. We focussed on controlled studies which either referred to microfracture alone or in comparison with any other surgical treatment of articular cartilage of the knee. Papers including patients who had been treated by microfracture and concomitant adjuvant procedures like ACL reconstruction or meniscus repair were accepted too, whereas papers reporting on the microfracture technique combined with the implantation of a scaffold were excluded. To achieve a best estimate of the average, to be expected treatment effect we pooled pooled before–after data of study arms using microfracture. Because cartilage studies employ various scales to measure functional improvements, we standardized treatment effects using Hedges' g. To provide clinically meaningful estimates we converted the pooled summary effect back into the respective scales by multiplying the pooled effect with pooled standard deviations of each included clinical scale. Results. A systematic review of the literature revealed six papers including 200 patients with a mean age of 32 years, a mean defect size of 3 cm. 2. and a follow up period from 2 to 5 years. Four of the studies compared microfracture to autologous chondrocyte implantation and two of them to osteochondral autologous transplantation. All patients were treated by the microfracture technique as described by Steadman and by a similar rehabilitation protocol which only allowed crutch-assisted touchdown weight bearing initially. Referring to the individual studies, a comparison of the pooled estimates of Hedges' g revealed that the two papers which evaluated the youngest patients provided the highest treatment effect. On the contrary, those two papers which focussed on the largest lesions, reported the worst improvement. Finally, the remaining two papers whose patients were characterized by similar age and defect size presented comparable results. The individual standardized effect sizes were combined into an overall best estimate. Its value was 1.678, measured in units of standard deviation, with the 95% confidence interval of [1.016; 2.340] resulting in different values of the average, to be expected treatment effect when it is measured in Lysholm Score (22.1), IKDC Score (26.5) and KOOS (15.2) points. Conclusions. Our results offer a clinically intuitive estimation of the average treatment effects on common clinical scales. Compared to the preoperative situation, a significant clinical improvement can be expected for each patient. Nevertheless, the magnitudes of these treatment effects are an approximation and must be interpreted cautiously. Furthermore, we did not succeed to confirm that young age and small lesion size have a beneficial effect on the clinical outcome